Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What about something which when it happens, we don't know how it was done, but later we learn how it was done? Would such a thing be:To God nothing is a miracle, we just call it a miracle because we don't know how it was done.
At quick glance, that is far from sufficient evidence that a god or gods exist. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and first ask what real thing is it you are calling "God"?"God is so all real and absolute that no material sign of proof or no demonstration of so-called miracle may be offered in testimony of his reality. Always will we know him because we trust him, and our belief in him is wholly based on our personal participation in the divine manifestations of his infinite reality." UB 1955
Only if you posit a god which possesses contradictory attributes. See Problem of Evil for a good example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmjFVP6qkiICan you provide any sufficient evidence that God does not exist?
What phenomena?If it's supernatural, and non-repeatable, how pray-tell will you, as a finite, limited human being, measure it, analyze it, or control for it in a comprehensive, scientific manner? Answer: you won't. This is why mainstream science leaves the supernatural out of the equation, and why we call this approach, "methodological materialism."
Phenomena that are super-natural are identified as "super" for the above reason; this is what "super" means. Thus, it is not a large problem to discern the difference between what we mean by nature and supernatural.
Good point, but the supernatural doesn't exist, as far as I know, so I don't see this being a problem.How can you discern between the natural and supernatural? Once a supernatural thing occurs within our physical world, it is no longer beyond the laws of the physical world and would therefore be part of the natural world.
My response here isn't critiquing anything you've said, rather I'm using the examples you raised, to explore ...
I'm aware of the concept of synchronicities, etc. At the most basic level, the Occam's Razor explanation is that they will always just be "coincidences", or instance of a person attempting to assign meaning to events and find patterns amongst the events. Since they may involve nothing more than a person's mind and reasoning, they are essentially and collectively easily dismissed by many as products of imagination...
.....Thus: natural, but not in an extraordinary sense. This doesn't mean that there isn't something to them, just, at the most basic Occam's Razor explanation, they are typically not extraordinary. There would need to be signifficant enough events as to almost defy coincidence or chance.
Prophetic or precognitive dreams are a bit more interesting, depending on factors. The more detailed they are, the more extraordinary they are, etc ... the more they may show *something* at work between how humans are able to make sense of events in the natural world extraordinary ways. But conversely, if they are riddled with too much symbolism and not enough detail, or are vague, then they are easily passed off as well as being nothing more than the imagination. However, the more extraordinary examples may show an interesting relationship between the way humans perceive information and events that unfold in the environment. Still natural, but if it's a legitimate phenomenon, the mechanism by which it works does not "stand out" apart from a human being as being the conduit, so to speak.
Physical healings are obviously more extraordinary, depending on context. But it's still taking place in the "natural", although the origin of the mechanism at work may point to something else, it's still reflected in the "natural". However if the healing isn't that remarkable (i.e. "My headache got better," or "My cancer got better over time,") ... then the Occam's Razor explanation would be more mundane causes behind the healing. If a limb were to grow back in the space of a minute (or perhaps even in the space of a couple of days) then that is obviously more extraordinary, but still ... it's taking place in the natural. Whatever the origin is, it's reflecting in the natural world.
...Personally ... and I'm somewhat assuming a lot of things here about you (hopefully I'm not overstepping) ... but I'd bet that if you experienced more extraordinary phenomena that involved events that took place separate from your "mind" so to speak ... like stigmata (effects the body in a dramatic way), or meeting a person whom looked like a human being but was able to do things that defied physics as you knew it (i.e. translocate, or make cars appear and disappear in an instant, vanish, etc), then you *may* see a more direct link to the natural world and things ascribed to the "supernatural". The line between the two may lead one to conclude there is no line. Synchronicity, dreams ... still essentially deal with the mind. Which can lead one to conclude, "I'm either making this all up in my head, or I'm onto something," ... while things physically effecting your body, or happening to the environment around you apart from your mind ... are more extraordinary and may have a different effect on one's conclusions. Just a guess.
How can you discern between the natural and supernatural? Once a supernatural thing occurs within our physical world, it is no longer beyond the laws of the physical world and would therefore be part of the natural world.
How about......You'd first have to provide a definition of the two terms in question. If you do this, I will answer the question.
Can you provide sufficient evidence that the supernatural or God exist?
If you had said, "Yes Jesus would be supernatural" I may have explored it further. You did essentially say that with "it kind of assumes an answer" ...
What kind of extensive objective information would suffice for you to determine if Jesus was "supernatural" or at least capable of supernatural abilities ? Lets forget Jesus for a moment, and say a man knocked on your door in the next 20 minutes and said, "I'm here to give you extensive objective information to make a determination of the supernatural, so go ahead and tell me what you need ..." what would suffice for you ?
How about......
Natural: any object and event of matter/energy.
Supernatural: anything else.
Believers are evidence, their changed lives are evidence.
Do atheists love one another? A little? Do Satanists love one another? Perversely? Do Mormons love one another? At times? Do Amish love one another? Like family? Do Muslims love one another? Like brothers? Do Jews love one another? Like gods? Do Christians love one another? Like students? Do believers love one another? Like Christ?
All this is love, God is love.
Does that answer your question?
Redefining things to claim they prove your point is intellectually dishonest.
No I meant that this individual would show up to your house 20 minutes from now, not that he would limit you to 20 minutes lol. Sorry if I didn't make that clearI would probably need more than twenty minuets and more than a bit of equipment.
Such as ?What would convince me would be clear enough objective and verifiable evidence that could rule out all possible natural explanations.
This sounds like a supernatural Turing Test of sorts. Which brings us back to Clarke's 3rd law. If it can fool us, then it's supernatural.If Jesus was capable of super-naturalism in controlled environments then I am guessing it would be quite convincing though.
This sounds like a supernatural Turing Test of sorts. Which brings us back to Clarke's 3rd law. If it can fool us, then it's supernatural.
No I meant that this individual would show up to your house 20 minutes from now, not that he would limit you to 20 minutes lol. Sorry if I didn't make that clear
Lots of objective data. The same thing that convinces me of anything.Such as ?
Completely and consistently convincing is the standard for all evidence, Turing just points out that we should hold to that standard.This sounds like a supernatural Turing Test of sorts. Which brings us back to Clarke's 3rd law. If it can fool us, then it's supernatural.
Are extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth?Believers are evidence, their changed lives are evidence.
...
I'm sorry but talquin asked for evidence, the evidence of the supernatural is the inexpressible and the evidence of the natural, a changed life.
The diversity of the faith is inexpressible, the individual examples of it, changed lives. If you cannot see this as evidence, it is better that you stop looking.
Furthermore, to claim that love can make no point about evidence is disingenuous, we are all children of the love of our parents.
AwesomeGood/ thought provoking exploration too. I've enjoyed reading it.
Yes ... they would be harder to ignore if they increased in frequency, etc and so forth. Of course the Occam's Razor explanation there is *expectation*. "I'm saw two eagles the other day, now I'm seeing eagles everywhere !" ... attributed to a person being alert and expecting to see them, etc and so forth. There may be something to them, there may not be.Yes, especially if they are a rare occurrence. When they start happening left and right they are little harder to ignore however.
Aww ... I would have liked to hear some of them. I'm a fan of direct experience.The highlighted portion makes an important point imo. When one has a dream that merely appears to predict a single event it's rather easy to chalk it up to chance. When one has a dream that predicts multiple events in a very literal fashion it again becomes harder to ignore. I would talk about some of my dreams here specifically (as examples) but I think my priest / spiritual father would smack me if I did . I've always been told not to do things like that especially in public or online.
Indeed, a possibility.I'm in strong agreement with the first bolded statement above. The later bolded statement could be accurate as well imo. What reason would we have to call it "supernatural"? I'm not sure. It may simply be a natural human faculty that just isn't as well known as some of the others that we posses.
I haven't seen this yet either, although I have seen incredible things which are somewhat comparable. I've seen the weather commanded with a person speaking words before, instantly respond to the words, like a faucet turning off and on. I've seen translocation (a person in one place one moment, then in a completely different place the next). Etc etc.No doubt. I've never seen a limb regrowing type thing before.
Here's an example that has various elements of the above ... hopefully you'll find this convo enjoyable as wellThat's possible. One could say that all we experience directly in relation to "outside" phenomena** is our own mind (nervous system etc..) or our own phaneron. Even "external" things could be chalked up to "it's just my mind playing tricks on me " too if one wanted to be very skeptical. I've certainly had audio, visual, tactile, even olfactory experiences in certain altered states that I assume were "not really there" in a physical sense at least. Some people use that fact to simply reject anything out of the ordinary that happens to people if it doesn't leave a lasting observable effect. "You [or 'you people'], must have been hallucinating!" But, yes, the more dramatic outer experiences like something that appears to be a physical levitation, people glowing and emitting warmth, etc... would be more fantastic and might be harder to deny then say a common run of the mill prophetic dream.
Well then no I don't have enough equipment to record document and measure an attempt at the supernatural.
So no, twenty minuets is probably not enough for me to document Jesus to be Supernatural regardless.
Lots of objective data. The same thing that convinces me of anything.
Hmm, I'd have to think about that.Completely and consistently convincing is the standard for all evidence, Turing just points out that we should hold to that standard.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?